2. Mr. SALAND (Sweden) said that the Bureau paper (A/CONF.183/C.1/L.59 and Corr.1) pointed towards broadly acceptable solutions.

3. He agreed that if generally acceptable provisions on the crime of aggression and treaty crimes were not found, those issues might be deferred to a review conference. {…}

9. Ms. CHATOOR (Trinidad and Tobago) said that aggression and all the treaty crimes should be included in the Statute. {…}

14. Mr. ROBINSON (Jamaica) thought that aggression, terrorism and drug trafficking should be listed in article 5. The Preparatory Commission should define them and elaborate their elements. Jurisdiction over the treaty crimes should be under an opt-in regime. {…}

31. Mr. YAÑEZ-BARNUEVO (Spain) said that, with regard to article 5, he well understood why the Bureau considered it preferable at that stage to focus on the core crimes on which, in principle, there was general agreement. Other matters could be included subsequently. A sentence could perhaps be included in the article leaving the way open for subsequent developments. {…}

41. Mr. GADYROV (Azerbaijan) {…}

43. He was disappointed that the crime of aggression and the treaty crimes were not covered in article 5, although he recognized that that reflected current political realities. As a compromise, since there was insufficient time to work out an appropriate definition for such crimes, perhaps they could be added to the list without any definition. There could be a transitional clause stating that, pending a definition thereof, the provisions on crimes of aggression and treaty crimes would not come into force. How they were to be eventually defined – by a preparatory commission or at a review conference – was an issue on which he was quite flexible.